China is paving its 'belt and road' to British Columbia

China is paving its 'belt and road' to British Columbia

Surrey warehouse part of China's Belt and Road Initiative, say its proponents

Aug 18, 2020 

• 
  

Warehouse and trade centre now constructed in Surrey. The World Commodity Trade Centre was due to the backing of the CCP, as part of its Belt and Road Initiative, the CCP/PLA initiated, global trade initiative of China.

A major warehouse facility under construction in Surrey is not just paving the way for more trade between B.C. and China. It could be helping pave Chinese President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative to Canada.

The massive $190 million, 470,000-square-foot complex, dubbed the “World Commodity Trade Center,” is a joint venture between a Chinese state-sponsored company and a local development firm. The centre, first conceived in Beijing, has four warehouses and two large exhibition halls — to be lined with Chinese and Canadian flags — strategically located in the Campbell Heights industrial zone between Vancouver International Airport and the United States border.

The centre is purported to be one of several Chinese import-export facilities servicing a central commodities hub on the outskirts of Beijing, called Yanjiao International Trade City, being developed by brand company World Commerce Valley, a division of Hong Kong-based trading firm Shing Kee Godown Group. The centre is being developed through Canadian subsidiaries North America Commerce Valley Development Ltd. and Shing Kee Godown (Canada) Holdings Ltd. and in partnership with local development firm Pollyco Group.

The centre’s proponents say it will facilitate the packaging, processing and storage of outgoing Canadian commodities and incoming Chinese products, to be showcased at exhibition hall events and trade conferences — all driven by an e-commerce trade model. Its detractors believe it is the thin edge of the wedge in facilitating a stronger presence of Beijing-directed business in the region.

The Yanjiao International Trade City diagram shows the Beijing-area import-export "mother centre" and the foreign hub cities, including Surrey, Vancouver B.C. that will service it. 

A trailblazing memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) between the B.C. government and Guangdong province in 2016 precedes the project. This MOU, signed by former BC Liberal Premier Christy Clark, is the only such one in North America. Most Western jurisdictions have been apprehensive of Xi’s aspirations of emboldening China’s national and economic interests on a global scale, via the BRI’s foreign infrastructure investments and overseas financial, social and cultural programs, which initially targeted developing Asian countries.

Ground broke on the facility on October 7, 2018, with China’s consul general Xiaoling Tong taking centre stage, flanked by local politicians, development partners and associates of the United Front Work Department, a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) agency that political analysts say promotes China’s interests among Chinese diasporas, often by persuading local Chinese organizations that may be sanctioned or supported by the department itself.

In interviews with political and trade experts, concerns have been raised over such foreign influence activities, as well as the potential cumulative impact of additional such trade facilities, which on their own do not meet the threshold for a federal government foreign investment review.

“Certainly the Chinese government develops these projects with a strategic mandate,” said Charles Burton, associate professor of political science at Brock University and senior fellow at the Canadian think tank MacDonald Laurier Institute.

BRI brand important in Beijing

A prominent figure of the United Front in B.C. is leading the project.

Guo Taicheng is chairman of Shing Kee Godown Group. The businessman is also executive vice-president of the China Federation of Overseas Chinese Entrepreneurs, which is part of the All-China Federation of Returned Overseas Chinese (AFROC) of the CCP’s United Front.

Guo — who says he is a permanent resident of Canada, who splits his time between Beijing and Vancouver, where his family lives — markets the centre as a BRI project, however in an interview with Glacier Media, via a translator, he distances the project from Xi’s ambitious plan for global hegemony, first announced in 2013.

Guo Taicheng is chairman of Hong Kong-based trading firm Shing Kee Godown Group. The businessman is also executive vice-president of the China Federation of Overseas Chinese Entrepreneurs, which is part of the All-China Federation of Returned Overseas Chinese (AFROC) of the United Work Front, an agency of the Chinese Communist Party.

“The belt and road initiative only provides an opportunity, but the idea started from many years ago,” he said. “Whether or not there’s a belt and road or whether or not it comes to North America doesn’t concern us [Shing Kee].”

In November, 2014, Shing Kee and Pollyco signed a framework agreement on the centre at a Vancouver investment summit. In 2015 Shing Kee took part in an agricultural trade conference with B.C. and Canadian agriculture and trade officials in attendance.

Guo envisions Canadian food producers as key warehouse tenants. The Surrey facility, he said, will lease space to small to medium sized Canadian businesses and “offer them entry to the Chinese market.”

Guo said the market would dictate what comes back to Canada, suggesting at this time Chinese-manufactured personal protective equipment could be a hot import upon opening. (Following the COVID-19 pandemic, Xi announced intentions of a China-led “health silk road,” as part of the increasingly broad BRI mandate.)

Guo confirmed associations such as AFROC require approval from the Chinese government and “to join the association will certainly bring opportunities.”

But he said he is not a member of the CCP and the party “does not tell [him] what to say or not to say,” despite his standing in the organization. Rather, his sole focus is on improving his business, and that means increasing trade.

However, Guo evokes nationalist rhetoric espoused by Xi, when speaking about the trade centre, which his company asserts is to serve the Yanjiao “mother centre.”

As reported in Chinese state media, Guo told a trade conference in December 2017 that, “The current new era of socialism with Chinese characteristics is a new era for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and a new era for overseas Chinese and overseas Chinese.”

When asked why it is important for his company to focus on the BRI and purported CCP achievements, Guo said, “It’s just to follow the local rules because in China you have to show this type of picture and play by the rules.

And, “How the government views this [trade centre] plan is not up to us,” added Guo, who met with China’s Consul General Tong Xiaoling in Vancouver to discuss the BRI in February 2018, according to the consulate’s website.

China’s inroads to Canada should be more closely monitored,
experts say

Former ambassador to China Guy Saint-Jacques says while many development proposals in China may provide more rhetoric than substance, it is clear this one has some degree of support from the Chinese government — although time will tell whether or not Yanjiao is a “pie in the sky.”

Regardless, he said CCP-sponsored activity in Canada requires a closer examination.

“We should be worried about the activities of the United Work Front,” said Saint-Jacques.

Of some concern is the degree to which local projects, such as the trade centre, may be controlled in a manner to favour China’s interests over Canada’s, said both Saint-Jacques and Burton.

“I would be interested to look at the contracts the Canadian companies will be asked to sign. If the Chinese are forcing to sign long-term exclusive rights, then I’d be concerned. Companies should learn from the ongoing crisis from China they need to diversify their markets.

“I would be concerned if these guys are saying, for instance, we will become your exclusive exporter to China for your cherries, for example,” said Saint-Jacques.

Pollyco’s manager Hugh Carter told Glacier Media in an interview his company is tasked with marketing the development whereas Shing Kee brings “users who fit into the trading centre.”

But Carter said while the company was aware the trade centre was billed back in China as a BRI project, it is his understanding any Canadian business may lease warehouse space and exporting products to China is not a requirement.

If that is the case, Saint-Jacques said there’s little to worry about with this project specifically.

“Unless this facility offers some kind of advantage or premium for shippers to use it [to export to China], I don’t think this will be significant,” he said.

Burton said he would be particularly worried if Chinese companies bought or built several such facilities in the Lower Mainland.

“That would give China an advantage in sourcing goods to put [Canadian companies] in a position where we couldn’t diversify to other competitors. Arguably, the whole BRI is about re-orienting the global economy to China, because all the belts and roads go to China. No belts and roads go other places,” said Burton.

This could be done without any Canadian government oversight. And so, a failure to understand China’s cumulative impact on commerce in Canada can jeopardize Canadian interests, Burton asserted.

Part of the BRI strategy, said Burton, “involves keeping under the thresholds for government regulation.

“In other words, several projects involving the same investment that put together would cross the threshold for government examination of national security implications. I think that’s part of the strategy,” Burton added.

Presently, Canada has certain federal thresholds for foreign investment reviews: For a member of the World Trade Organization, such as China, any state-owned investment over $428 million requires a review. And the review for the private sector is $1.075 billion — far above the Campbell Heights project, which is larger than Amazon’s regional warehouse in South Delta.

Saint-Jacques is calling on the Canadian government to update its China engagement strategy, which should take a full look at China’s existing assets in Canada and include plans to diversify trade away from the authoritarian regime.

“This review will make sure we aren’t getting into any situation where national security would be at risk,” he said.

Washington, DC-based think tank RWR Advisory, which publishes the monthly Belt and Road Monitor, also states China’s economic policies pose national security risks to the United States and other Western jurisdictions.

That’s why all foreign investment should be tracked, even at the local government level, said RWR analyst Claire Chu.

“Being aware of the money flowing in and out of their territory — I think that’s really important,” said Chu.

Vancouver-area businessman Guo Taicheng speaks in 2018 to the All-China Federation of Overseas Chinese association in China. On February 28, 2018 Chinese Consul General Xiaoxiao Ling met with Guo in Vancouver. "The two sides exchanged views on issues such as promoting China-Canada trade and investment cooperation and participating in the 'Belt and Road' international cooperation," according to the consulate's website 

Chu said United Front activity can be a harbinger for China’s BRI objectives since these CCP-backed groups play a key role in business arrangements at the local government level.

“That’s increasingly a way China is influencing people from the bottom up and also getting into projects without having to wrangle with the central government,” said Chu, who describes a “huge network” of business people, community leaders and students.

“The idea of the United Front organization is to achieve influence, spread propaganda, spread Chinese government thoughts all over the world — and so a lot of [local groups] are called friendship societies or friendship organizations. They are active all over the world.

“This is not to cast a wide net of suspicion on a group of people, rather to explain that a lot of friendship associations will receive funding from these United Front organizations. It doesn’t mean they’re working for the [Chinese] government, but it does mean they’re more susceptible to government influence, government ideas and participating in government projects,” said Chu.

A tough critic of the CCP, Burton describes a muzzling effect on Canadian citizens and companies.

“The Chinese companies involved cannot be separated from other aspects of the Chinese regime in the sense they need permission from the regime to engage in trade and development projects. The condition is they support the other goals of the Chinese regime,” said Burton.

In turn, the local Canadian companies involved with such Chinese companies would likely need to fall in line with China’s interests, Burton asserted.

“None of the representatives in the (Canadian) companies would be likely to express concern, say, over the national security law related to Hong Kong even though they could well have strong Hong Kong connections and strong feelings …anyone who articulates such a position would likely lose the opportunity to engage in the economic benefits of a project because the Chinese partners would know if they co-operated with people seen as unfriendly to the Chinese regime, then they would suffer in their ability to function,” explained Burton.

Canada lacks foreign influence laws to register and regulate groups acting in the interest of foreign states, noted Burton at a February 24 meeting for the House of Commons Special Committee on Canada-China Relations.

“Australia’s 2018 Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act should be examined carefully by this Committee. Canada needs to come to terms with Chinese money benefiting Canadian political campaigns and rewarding Canadian politicians and public servants who are seen as ‘friends of China,’” said Burton.

The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians 2019 annual report spells out much of the concern over CCP activity in Canada.

B.C. MOU first paved way for belt and road

Australia is also home to another rare MOU on the BRI in the West. Its pro-Beijing state government of Victoria signed one in October 2018, however its premier Daniel Andrews has since faced a substantial outcry for doing so, especially following Australia’s concerns over China’s handling of the COVID-19 outbreak.

British Columbia’s foray into China’s Belt and Road Initiative began with senior provincial politicians — namely then International Trade Minister Teresa Wat and Premier Christy Clark — hosting their “sister province” counterparts from Guangdong, including some senior CCP officials, at the May 2016 China-Canada Economic and Trade Cooperation Conference — One Belt One Road Initiative Workshop, held in Vancouver. Clark told the conference she looked forward to “building a one road, one belt policy between our two countries our two provinces.”

The objective of the MOU, stated internal memos from B.C. government staff, “is to strengthen cooperation between the provinces to jointly examine mutually beneficial opportunities presented by China’s One Belt One Road Initiative and British Columbia’s Pacific Gateway Strategy: to enhance maritime connectivity and expand two-way investment and trade in goods and services from energy and natural resources to value added products, professional services, international education and tourism.”

Former BC Liberal premier Christy Clark and her international trade minister Teresa Wat attempted to form deeper connections to China during the 2013-2017 term in office. Here they are shown welcoming Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei to B.C. as part of a project with Telus in 2015. In 2016, Clark, Wat and then advanced education minister Andrew Wilkinson (now leader of the opposition) signed an MOU on China's Belt and Road Initiative. 

Pacific Gateway is a multi-billion dollar network of road, rail and port infrastructure aimed at increasing exports overseas. It includes prominent projects such as the Port Mann Bridge, Fraser Perimeter Highway, Deltaport Terminal expansion, Vancouver International Airport expansion and the Site C dam to provide electricity for increased LNG production for export — with China being the main buyer.

A ministerial backgrounder for Wat stated that “Chinese officials have repeatedly noted that Canada can participate, especially as an investor or a partner …but observers say Ottawa’s decision last year to not join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) severely hampers Canadian business chances.” (In March, 2017, Canada’s new Liberal federal government signed on to the AIIB, a Chinese state-backed development bank that is a component of BRI.)

Wat told the B.C. Legislature in April, 2018, “This memorandum meant much more than just another agreement between the two provincial governments. It was a pivotal step in extending the belt and road initiative to North America, which was not originally covered.”

No one contested Wat’s statement and NDP Premier John Horgan declined to comment on his government’s continued support for China’s BRI. Wat and Clark also declined interviews.

Wat is MLA for Richmond North Centre, which holds the most concentrated population of Mainland Chinese residents in Canada. She is a frequent attendee of events held by China’s consul general in Vancouver and she heavily promoted trade with China during her 2013-2017 tenure as provincial trade minister. In this time Wat and Clark also touted more international students from China, Huawei’s entrance into Canada’s 5G network and led B.C. to become the first jurisdiction outside China to issue Renminbi bonds.

All this was done in the absence of a free trade agreement between China and Canada. B.C. bureaucrats did raise internal questions about provincial/federal mandates, however.

“We do not need approval from the federal government for the MOU or the Joint Declaration. We simply need our BC Ministry of Justice to review and approve the documents,” wrote Donald Haney, executive director, Economic Policy and Asia Pacific Relations, Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat.

Global Affairs Canada, Canada’s ministry in charge of international trade, declined to comment on what position the country takes on the Belt and Road Initiative, which is strongly rebuked by the United States. A Global Affairs spokesperson added, “the federal government does not tell provinces and territories what they can and cannot do within their own jurisdictions.”

Saint-Jacques said because the MOU is not a legally binding agreement he takes no issue with it; in fact the MOU is a “good move” to signal investment interest from B.C.

B.C.’s MOU, “remains general in nature,” said Saint-Jacques.

“The hope is it would lead to some [BRI] contracts for Canadian companies. But in practice it remains very difficult for Canadian companies to get business,” said Saint-Jacques, noting despite Canada pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the AIIB, Canadian companies have reaped nothing, to date.

However, there is more acute concern over BRI in places such as Greece, said Saint-Jacques, where the Greek government has allowed China to own and effectively control its ports, and in turn force Greece’s hand at the European Union, leading Greek officials to “water down language and avoid direct criticism of China.”

Saint-Jacques said any concerns B.C. is too close to Beijing can nevertheless be put on pause momentarily, given the deteriorating diplomatic and trade situation between the two countries since the December, 2018, arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou.

Six wars China is sure to fight in the next *50 years

Six wars China is sure to fight in the next *50 years

 OCTOBER 15, 2013

On July 8, 2013, the pro-PRC Chinese-language newspaper, Wenweipo, published an article titled “中國未來50年裡必打的六場戰爭 (Six Wars China Is Sure to Fight In the Next 50 Years)”.

The anticipated six wars are all irredentist in purpose – the reclaiming of what the Chinese believe to be national territories lost since Imperial China was defeated by the Brits in the Opium War of 1840-42. That defeat, in the view of Chinese nationalists, began China’s “Hundred Years of Humiliation.” (See: Maria Hsia Chang, Return of the Dragon: China’s Wounded Nationalism. Westview, 2001.)

Below is the English translation of the article, from a Hong Kong blog, Midnight Express 2046. (The year 2046 is an allusion to what this blog believes will be the last year of Beijing’s “One County, Two Systems” formula for ruling Hong Kong, and “the last year of brilliance of Hong Kong.”)

Midnight Express 2046 (ME2046) believes this article “is quite a good portrait of modern Chinese imperialism.” What ME2046 omits are:

the original Chinese-language article identifies the source of the article as 中新網 (ChinaNews.com).

The Chinese-language title of the article includes the word by (必), which means “must” or “necessary” or “surely.” That is why  the word “sure” in the English-language title of the article.

THE SIX WARS [SURE] TO BE FOUGHT BY CHINA IN THE COMING 50 YEARS

China is not yet a unified great power. This is a humiliation of the Chinese people, a shame for the children of the Yellow Emperor. For the sake of national unification and dignity, China has to fight six wars in the coming fifty years. Some are regional wars; the others may be total wars. No matter what is the nature, each one of them is inevitable for Chinese unification.

THE 1ST WAR: UNIFICATION OF TAIWAN (YEAR 2020 TO 2025)

Though we are enjoying peace on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, we should not daydream a resolution of peaceful unification from Taiwan administration (no matter it is Chinese Nationalist Party or Democratic Progressive Party). Peaceful unification does not fit their interests while running for elections. Their stance is therefore to keep to the status quo (which is favorable to the both parties, each of them can get more bargaining chips) For Taiwan, “independence” is just a mouth talk than a formal declaration, while “unification” is just an issue for negotiation than for real action. The current situation of Taiwan is the source of anxiety to China, since everyone can take the chance to bargain more from China.

China must work out a strategy to unify Taiwan within the next ten years, that is, by 2020. By then, China will have to send an ultimatum to Taiwan, demanding the Taiwanese to choose the resolution of peaceful unification (the most preferred epilogue for the Chinese) or war (an option forced to be so) by 2025. For the purpose of unification, China has to make preparation three to five years earlier. So when the time comes, the Chinese government must act on either option, to give a final answer to the problem.

From the analysis of the current situation, Taiwan is expected to be defiant towards unification, so military action will be the only solution. This war of unification will be the first war under the sense of modern warfare since the establishment of the “New China”. This war will be a test to the development of the People’s Liberation Army in modern warfare. China may win this war easily, or it may turn out to be a difficult one. All depends on the level of intervention of the U.S. and Japan. If the U.S. and Japan play active roles in aiding Taiwan, or even make offensives into the Chinese mainland, the war must become a difficult and prolonged total war. On the other hand, if the U.S. and Japan just watch and see, the Chinese army can easily defeat the Taiwanese. In this case, Taiwan can be under control within three months. Even if the U.S. And Japan step in at this stage, the war can be finished within six months.

THE 2ND WAR: “RECONQUEST” OF SPRATLY ISLANDS (YEAR 2025 TO 2030)

After unification of Taiwan, China will take a rest for two years. During the period of recovery, China will send the ultimatum to the countries surrounding the Islands with the deadline of 2028. The countries having disputes on the sovereignty of the Islands can negotiate with China on preserving their shares of investments in these Islands by giving up their territorial claims. If not, once China declares war on them, their investments and economic benefits will be taken over by China.

At this moment, the South East Asian countries are already shivering with the Chinese military unification of Taiwan. On one hand, they will be sitting by the negotiation table, yet they are reluctant to give up their interests in the Islands. Therefore, they will be taking the wait-and-see attitude and keep delaying to make the final decision. They will not decide whether to make peace or go into war until China takes any firm actions. The map below shows the situation of territorial claims over the Spratly Islands. (Map omitted)

Besides, the U.S. will not just sit and watch China “reconquesting” the Islands. In the 1st war mentioned above, the U.S. may be too late to join the war, or simply unable to stop China from reunifying Taiwan. This should be enough to teach the U.S. a lesson not to confront too openly with China. Still, the U.S. will aid those South East Asian countries, such as Vietnam and the Philippines, under the table. Among the countries surrounding the South China Sea, only Vietnam and the Philippines dare to challenge China’s domination. Still, they will think twice before going into war with China, unless they fail on the negotiation table, and are sure they can gain military support from the U.S.

The best option for China is to attack Vietnam, since Vietnam is the most powerful country in the region. Beating Vietnam can intimidate the rest. While the war with Vietnam goes on, other countries will not move. If Vietnam loses, others will hand their islands back to China. If the opposite, they will declare war on China.

Of course, China will beat Vietnam and take over all the islands. When Vietnam loses the war and its islands, others countries, intimidated by Chinese military power, yet still with greediness to keep their interest, will negotiate with China, returning the islands and declaring allegiance to China. So China can build the ports and place troops on these islands, extending its influence into the Pacific Ocean.

Up till now, China has made a thorough breakthrough of the First Island Chain and infiltrated the Second one, Chinese aircraft carrier can have free access into the Pacific Ocean, safeguarding its own interests.

THE 3RD WAR: “RECONQUEST” OF SOUTHERN TIBET (YEAR 2035 TO 2040)

China and India share a long border, but the only sparking point of conflicts between the two countries is only the part of Southern Tibet. China has long been the imaginary enemy of India. The military objective of India is to surpass China. India aims to achieve this by self-development and importing advanced military technologies and weapons from the U.S, Russia and Europe, chasing closely to China in its economic and military development.

In India, the official and media’s attitude is more friendly towards the U.S, Russia and Europe, and is repellent or even hostile against China. This leads to unresolvable conflicts with China. On the other hand, India values itself highly with the aid from the U.S, Russia and Europe, thinking it can beat China in wars. This is also the reason of long-lasting land disputes.

Twenty years later, although India will lag behind more compared to China in military power, yet it is still one of the few world powers. If China uses military force to conquer Southern Tibet, it has to bear some losses. In my opinion, the best strategy for China is to incite the disintegration of India. By dividing into several countries, India will have no power to cope with China.

Of course, such plan may fail. But China should at least try its best to incite Assam province and once conquered Sikkim to gain independence, to weaken the power of India. This is the best strategy.

The second best plan is to export advanced weapons to Pakistan, helping Pakistan to conquer Southern Kashmir region in 2035 and to achieve its unification. While India and Pakistan are busy fighting against each other, China should take a Blitz to conquer Southern Tibet, at the time occupied by India.

India will not be able to fight a two front war, and is deemed to lose both. China can retake Southern Tibet easily, while Pakistan can control the Kashmir. If this plan cannot be adopted, the worst case is direct military action to take back Southern Tibet.

After the first two wars, China has rested for around ten years, and has become a world power both in terms of military and economy. There will only be the U.S. and Europe (on the condition that it becomes a united country. If not, this will be replaced by Russia. But from my point of view, European integration is probable) able to cope with China in the top three list in world power.

After taking back Taiwan and Spratly Islands, China has great leap forward in its military power in army, navy, air force and space warfare. China will be on the leading role in its military power, may be only second to the U.S. Therefore, India will lose this war.

THE 4TH WAR: “RECONQUEST” OF DIAOYU ISLAND [SENKAKU] AND
 RYUKYU ISLANDS (YEAR 2040 TO 2045)

In the mid-21st century, China emerges as the real world power, accompanied with the decline of Japan and Russia, stagnant U.S. and India and the rise of Central Europe. That will be the best time for China to take back Diaoyu Island and Ryukyu Islands. 

Many people may know that Diaoyu Island is the land of China since the ancient times, but have no idea that the Japanese annexed Ryukyu Island (now named as Okinawa, with U.S. military base). The society and the government of China is misled by the Japanese while they are discussing on the issues of the East China Sea, such as the “middle-line” set by the Japanese or “Okinawa issue” (Ryukyu Islands in Chinese), by coming to think that Ryukyu Islands are the ancient lands of Japan.

What a shame for such ignorance! From the historical records of Chinese, Ryukyu and other countries (including Japan), Ryukyu has long been the vassal states of China since ancient times, which means the islands are the lands of China. In this case, is the “middle line” set by Japan in the East China Sea justified? Does Japan have anything to do with the East China Sea? (Those who have no idea in these details may refer to “Ryukyu: An indispensable part of China since the ancient times” written by me)

The Japanese has robbed our wealth and resources in the East China Sea and unlawfully occupied Diaoyu Island and Ryukyu Islands for many years, the time will come that they have to pay back. At that time, we can expect that the U.S. will be willing to intervene but has weakened; Europe will keep silent; Russia will sit and watch the fight. The war can end within half of a year with overwhelming victory of China. Japan will have no choice but to return Diaoyu Island and Ryukyu Islands to China. East China Sea becomes the inner lake of China. Who dare to put a finger on it?

THE 5TH WAR: UNIFICATION OF OUTER MONGOLIA (YEAR 2045 TO 2050)

Though there are advocates for reunification of Outer Mongolia at the moment, is this idea realistic? Those unrealistic guys in China are just fooling themselves and making a mistake in strategic thinking. This is just no good to the great work of unification of Outer Mongolia.

After taking Taiwan, we should base our territorial claims on the constitution and domain of the Republic of China (some people may raise a question here: why should we base our claims on the constitution and domain of the Republic of China? In such case, isn’t the People’s Republic of China being annexed by the Republic of China? This is a total bullshit. I will say: the People’s Republic of China is China; the Republic of China is China too. As a Chinese, I only believe that unification means power. The way which can protect the Chinese best from foreign aggression is the best way to the Chinese people.

We also need to know that the People’s Republic of China recognizes the independence of Outer Mongolia. Using the constitution and domain of the People’s Republic of China to unify Outer Mongolia is naked aggression. We can only have legitimate cause to military action using the constitution and domain of the Republic of China. What’s more, it is the case after Taiwan being taken over by China. So isn’t it meaningless to argue which entity being unified?). China should raise the issue of unification with Outer Mongolia, and to take propaganda campaigns inside Outer Mongolia. China should also pick the groups advocating the unification, aiding them to take over key posts in their government, and to proclaim Outer Mongolia as the core interests of China upon the settlement of Southern Tibet issue by 2040.

If Outer Mongolia can return to China peacefully, it is the best result of course; but if China meets foreign intervention or resistance, China should be ready to take military action. Taiwan model can be useful in this case: giving an ultimatum with deadline in the Year 2045. Let Outer Mongolia to consider the case for few years. If they refuse the offer, then military action takes off.

In this moment, the previous four wars have been settles. China has the political, military and diplomatic power to unify Outer Mongolia. The weakened U.S. and Russia dare not to get involved except diplomatic protests; Europe will take a vague role; while India, Africa and Central Asian countries will remain silent. China can dominate Outer Mongolia within three years’ time. After the unification, China will place heavy troops on frontier to monitor Russia. China will take ten years to build up elemental and military infrastructure to prepare for the claim of territorial loss from Russia.

THE 6TH WAR: TAKING BACK OF LANDS LOST TO RUSSIA (YEAR 2055 TO 2060)

The current Sino-Russian relationship seems to be a good one, which is actually a result of no better choice facing the U.S. In reality, the two countries are meticulously monitoring the each other. Russia fears the rise of China threaten its power; while China never forgets the lands lost to Russia. When the chance comes, China will take back the lands lost.

After the victories of the previous five wars by 2050, China will make territorial claims based on the domain of Qing Dynasty (similar way by making use of the domain of the Republic of China to unify Outer Mongolia) and to make propaganda campaigns favoring such claims. Efforts should also be made to disintegrate Russia again.

In the days of “Old China”, Russia has occupied around one hundred and sixty million square kilometre of lands, equivalent to one-sixth of the landmass of current domain of China. Russia is therefore the bitter enemy of China. After the victories of previous five wars, it is the time to make Russians pay their price.

There must be a war with Russia. Though at that time, China has become an advanced power in navy, army, air and space forces, it is nevertheless the first war against a nuclear power. Therefore, China should be well prepared in nuclear weapons, such as the nuclear power to strike Russia from the front stage to the end. When the Chinese army deprives the Russians’ ability to counter strike, they will come to realize that they can no longer match China in the battlefield. They can do nothing but to hand over their occupied lands and to pay a heavy price to their invasions



The following is the actual text of a speech delivered in December, 2005 by Comrade Chi Haotian --the Vice-Chairman of China's Military Commission to top officers and generals. Keep in mind that China has for many years advocated deceitful and covert warfare against its enemies. This is their Modus Operandi. There hould be little question that a "Bird Flu" Pandemic would deeply excite them. (Don't forget how they have poisoned thousands of American pets and knowingly placed lead paints on toddler's toys.)

"Comrades, I'm very excited today, because the large-scale online survey sina.com that was done for us showed that our next generation is quite promising and our Party's cause will be carried on. In answering the question, "Will you shoot at women, children and prisoners of war," more than 80 per cent of the respondents answered in the affirmative, exceeding by far our expectations.
Today I'd like to focus on why we asked sina.com to conduct this online survey among our people. My speech today is a sequel to my speech last time, during which I started with a discussion of the issue of the three islands [Taiwan, Diaoyu Islands and the Spratley Islands --- Ott] and mentioned that 20 years of the idyllic theme of 'peace and development' had come to an end, and concluded that modernization under the saber is the only option for China's next phase. I also mentioned we have a vital stake overseas.

The central issue of this survey appears to be whether one should shoot at women, children and prisoners of war, but its real significance goes far beyond that. Ostensibly, our intention is mainly to figure out what the Chinese people's attitude towards war is: If these future soldiers do not hesitate to kill even noncombatants, they'll naturally be doubly ready and ruthless in killing combatants.

Therefore, the responses to the survey questions may reflect the general attitude people have towards war. . .. . ...We wanted to know: If China's global development will necessitate massive deaths in enemy countries, will our people endorse that scenario? Will they be for or against it? The fact is, our 'development' refers to the great revitalization of the Chinese nation, which, of course, is not limited to the land we have now but also includes the whole world.

As everybody knows, according to the views propagated by the Western scholars, humanity as a whole originated from one single mother in Africa. Therefore no race can claim racial superiority. However, according to the research conducted by most Chinese scholars, the Chinese are different from other races on earth. We did not originate in Africa. Instead, we originated independently in the land of China. Therefore, we can rightfully assert that we are the product of cultural roots of more than a million years, civilization and progress of more than ten thousand years, an ancient nation of five thousand years, and a single Chinese entity of two thousand years. This is the Chinese nation that calls itself 'descendants of Yan and Huang. During our long history, our people have disseminated throughout the Americas and the regions along the Pacific Rim, and they became Indians in the Americas and the East Asian ethnic groups in the South Pacific.

We all know that on account of our national superiority, during the thriving and prosperous Tang Dynasty our civilization was at the peak of the world. We were the centre of the world civilization, and no other civilization in the world was comparable to ours. Later on, because of our complacency, narrow-mindedness, and the self-enclosure of our own country, we were surpassed by Western civilization, and the centre of the world shifted to the West.

In reviewing history, one may ask: Will the centre of the world civilization shift back to China? Actually, Comrade Liu Huaqing made similar points in early 1980's Based on an historical analysis, he pointed out that the centre of world civilization is shifting. It shifted from the East to Western Europe and later to the United States; now it is shifting back to the East. Therefore, if we refer to the 19th
Century as the British Century and the 20th century as the American Century, then the 21st Century will be the Chinese Century!! (Wild applause fills the auditorium.)

Our Chinese people are wiser than the Germans because, fundamentally, our race is superior to theirs. As a result, we have a longer history, more people, and larger land area. On this basis, our ancestors left us with the two most essential heritages, which are atheism and great unity. It was Confucius, the founder of our Chinese culture, who gave us these heritages. These two heritages determined that we have a stronger ability to survive than the West. That is why the Chinese race has been able to prosper for so long. 

We are destined 'not to be buried by either heaven or earth' no matter how severe the natural, man-made, and national disasters. This is our advantage. Take response to war as an example. The reason that the United States remains today is that it has never seen war on its mainland. Once its enemies aim at the mainland, the enemies would have already reached Washington before its congress finishes debating and authorizes the president to declare war. But for us, we don't waste time on these trivial things.

Maybe you have now come to understand why we recently decided to further promulgate atheism. If we let theology from the West into China and empty us from the inside, if we let all Chinese people listen to God and follow God, who will obediently listen to us and follow us? If the common people don't believe Comrade Hu Jintao is a qualified leader, begin to question his authority, and want to monitor him, if the religious followers in our society question why we are leading
God in churches, can our Party continue to rule China??

The first pressing issue facing us is living space. This is the biggest focus of the revitalization of the Chinese race. In my last speech, I said that the fight over basic living resources (including land and ocean) is the source of the vast majority of wars in history. This may change in the information age, but not fundamentally. Our per capita resources are much less than those of Germany's back then. In addition, economic development in the last twenty-plus years had a negative impact, and climates are rapidly changing for the worse. Our resources are in very short supply. The environment is severely polluted, especially that of soil, water, and air. Not only our ability to sustain and develop our race, but even its survival is gravely threatened, to a degree much greater than faced Germany back then.

Anybody who has been to Western countries knows that their living space is much better than ours. They have forests alongside the highways, while we hardly have any trees by our streets. Their sky is often blue with white clouds, while our sky is covered with a layer of dark haze. Their tap water is clean enough for drinking, while even our ground water is so polluted that it can't be drunk without filtering.

They have few people in the streets, and two or three people can occupy a small residential building; in contrast our streets are always crawling with people, and several people have to share one room. Many years ago, there was a book titled Yellow Catastrophes. It said that, due to our following the American style of consumption, our limited resources would no longer support the population and society would collapse once our population reaches 1.3 billion. Now our population has already exceeded this limit, and we are now relying on imports to sustain our nation. It's not that we haven't paid attention to this issue. The Ministry of Land Resources is specialized in this issue.

But we must understand that the term 'living space' (lebenstraum) is too closely related to Nazi Germany. The reason we don't want to discuss this too openly is to avoid the West's association of us with Nazi Germany, which could in turn reinforce the view that China is a threat. Therefore, in our emphasis on He Xin's new theory, 'Human Rights are just living rights' we only talk about 'living' but not 'space' so as to avoid using the term 'living space.

From the perspective of history, the reason that China is faced with the issue of living space is because Western countries have developed ahead of Eastern countries. Western countries
established colonies all around the world, therefore giving themselves an advantage on the issue of living space. To solve this problem, we must lead the Chinese people outside of China, so that they can develop outside of China.

Would the United States allow us to go out to gain new living space? First, if the United States is firm in blocking us, it is hard for us to do anything significant to Taiwan and some other countries! Second, even if we could snatch some land from Taiwan, Vietnam, India, or even Japan, how much more living space can we get? Very trivial!

Only countries like the United States, Canada and Australia have the vast land to serve our need for mass colonization. Therefore, solving the 'issue of America' is the key to solving all other issues.

First, this makes it possible for us to have many people migrate there and even establish another China under the same leadership of the CCP. America was originally discovered by the ancestors of the yellow race, but Columbus gave credit to the White race. 


We the descendants of the Chinese nation are ENTITLED to the possession of the land!!! It is historical destiny that China and United States will come into unavoidable confrontation on a narrow path and fight. In the long run, the relationship of China and the United States is one of a life-and-death struggle.

Of course, right now it is not the time to openly break up with them yet. Our reform and opening to the outside world still rely on their capital and technology. We still need America. Therefore, we must do everything we can to promote our relationship with America, learn from America in all aspects and use America as an example to reconstruct our country.

Only by using special means to 'clean up' America will we be able to lead the Chinese people there. Only by using non-destructive weapons that can kill many people will we be able to reserve America for ourselves. 

There has been rapid development of modern biological technology, and new bio weapons have been invented one after another. Of course we have not been idle; in the past years we have seized the opportunity to master weapons of this kind. We are capable of achieving our purpose of 'cleaning up' America all of a sudden. When Comrade Xiaoping was still with us, the Party Central committee had the perspicacity to make the right decision not to develop aircraft carrier groups and focused instead on developing lethal weapons that can eliminate mass populations of the enemy
country.

Biological weapons are unprecedented in their ruthlessness, but if the Americans do not die then the Chinese have to die. If the Chinese people are strapped to the present land, a total societal collapse is bound to take place.

According to the computations of the author of Yellow Peril, more than half of the Chinese will die, and that figure would be more than 800 million people! Just after the liberation, our yellow land supported nearly 500 million people, while today the official figure of the population is more than 1.3 billion. This yellow land has reached the limit of its capacity. One day, who know how soon it will come, the great collapse will occur any time and more than half of the population will have to go.

It is indeed brutal to kill one or two hundred million Americans. But that is the only path that will secure a Chinese century, a century in which the CCP leads the world. We, as revolutionary humanitarians, do not want deaths, But if history confronts us with a choice between deaths of Chinese and those of Americans, we'd have to pick the latter, as, for us, it is more important to safeguard the lives of the Chinese people and the life of our Party.

The last problem I want to talk about is of firmly seizing the preparations for military battle. The central committee believes, as long as we resolve the United States problem at one blow, our domestic problems will all be readily solved.

Epoch Times, Thursday 25 August 2005 23:54

Chi Haotian , Chinese Communist Party ,Chinese master race ,biological weapons ,nuclear war , USA ,Tiawan , Japan ,Australia , Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party of China , outlet , Mao Zedong , 4 June , III.World War , 

• 

  The war comes to us

• 

  "The war is not far, it is the midwife of the Chinese century!"

• 

  War readiness of the Chinese population in the test

"Our economic development is used exclusively for the preparation of war." Chi Haotian , Defense Minister of China to 2004

Several Chinese news sites published recently speeches by Chi Haotian, vice chairman of the powerful Military Commission and former Chinese Minister of Defense. These speeches aroused great excitement among the Chinese population. Find The majority of the Chinese, who commented on the speeches that this very clearly reflect the ideology of the CCP.

An atomic and biological war against the United States is to ensure the survival of the Communist Party of China (CPC). This explained the former Chinese Defense Minister and current Vice Chairman of the Military Commission, Chi Haotian, in his speeches, "The war is coming towards us" and "War is not far from us, he is the obstetrics of the Chinese century", which has recently been on several news sites are disseminated and discussed in China. In these speeches explains Chi, a nuclear and biological first strike against America is intended to ensure the survival of the CCP in China. At the same time you want by turning off the United States are "Chinese century" launched - the global supremacy of the "Chinese master race".

By an appropriately strong military first strike with nuclear and biological weapons , the combat power of the United States should at once broken and a nuclear war can be avoided. "Even if a nuclear war were to break out, this would be no problem for the Chinese population. You would multiply again within a short time. "Said Chi. The losses on the Chinese side, he estimates in this case, seven or eight hundred million people. In the U.S., the number of victims would in any case be at one-to two hundred million.

"The expansion plans of China's military is not only directed at Taiwan," even the Taiwanese president, Chen Shui-bian confirmed to the Australian press. "Some of the deployed missiles have a range of around 10,000 km.So you can also destinations in the U.S., Japan and Australia meet. "

In China, the pressure on the communist totalitarian ruling party is getting stronger. In the recent past, contributed "Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party" (as reported) to a steady weakening of the CCP at.Currently, around 30,000 people by the Communist Party say going on in China per day after they were informed by the "Nine Commentaries" on the crimes of the CCP.

In the past, the Chinese party leadership always turned to the concept of an external war, when the domestic political pressure was too great. A few weeks ago a Chinese military had threatened a nuclear first strike against the United States, located in the America should interfere, repatriation 'of Taiwan.

The following quotes from these speeches is one of the highest-ranking military in China should give the reader the opportunity to form their own opinion.

Loosen the lack of habitat

"Comrade Mao Zedong said that if we lead our allies to victory and make them benefit from it, they would support us. Consequently, as long as we can lead the Chinese people outside of China, the lack of habitat in China expectorant, the Chinese would support us. (...) Whether we can represent the Chinese people forever, depends on whether we can lead out of China successful. "(...)" After the uprising of June 4 was knocked down, we thought about it as we are in front of a China can preserve peaceful change and get the leadership of the Communist Party. We thought and thought, but we did not find any solution. But if we could get a good idea, China would inevitably peaceful change in the future, and we would all be condemned by history as a criminal. After careful consideration, we finally come to the following conclusion: only if we combine the developed strength of our nation into a force that penetrates to the outside with a punch - only if we lead our people to the outside ... our party will stand on solid ground and the Chinese People's Communist Party have to add (...). "

The economic development is preparing for war

"We have therefore recognized by the riots on June 4 (1989), that we need to link economic development with the preparation of war to lead the people out! Therefore, the national defense policy has made ​​a U-turn at this time and we have since our main focus on the "down link of peace and war." Our economic development is used exclusively for the preparation of war. In public, we will continue to emphasize economic development, but in reality, economic growth revolves around the war as its center. (...) We store everything you need for a war. Therefore, we do not shy away from the III. World War I to lead our people to the outside and to strengthen the leadership of the party. Either way we will never withdraw from the stage of history down. We would be more likely to share the whole world or even the entire globe life and death with us than step down from the stage of history! "

The environment is dirty

"(...) The first point is the habitat. This is the biggest focus in the revitalization of the Chinese race. (...) Furthermore, had the economic development of the past 20 years, adverse effects, and the climate is deteriorating rapidly. Our resources are scarce. The environment is severely polluted, especially soil, water and air. "(...)" In fact, however, is the development, to which we refer, China's grand rebirth, this reincarnation can certainly not be limited to our national territory, they must be extend over the whole world! "

"Anyone who has been in Western countries knows that their living space is much better than ours. They have forests along the highways, while we hardly have a few trees on our streets. Your sky is often blue with white clouds, while our sky is covered with dark mist. Their tap water is clean enough to drink, it can, while with us even the ground water is so polluted that it can not be drunk without filtering. They have little people in the streets, and two or three people can occupy a small house, on the other hand is crawling on our streets by people and several people share a room. "

Open fire on children, women and prisoners of war

"Comrades, today I am very excited because we commissioned, large-scale online survey, which was conducted by Sina Net, makes clear that our next generation is very hopeful, and that they will be the future of our party company . When people were asked, "Would you open fire on women, children and prisoners of war," affirmed over 80 percent, which exceeded our expectations. Although superficially it was the question of whether they would open fire on women, children and prisoners of war, as is the importance that shows itself in the fact but not limited to. Our main intention was to find out the attitude of the Chinese people against the war. If these future soldiers would dare to kill civilians, they will of course kill a hundred more soldiers. Therefore, we have found through this survey, the general attitude of our people towards the war. However, our true intention goes even further. The aim of this survey adopted by the Politburo is to find out: If China is expanding globally, and the population of our enemies is killed en masse, our people would be willing to accept it or not, they would support us or be against us "

The Chinese Century

"If the 19th Century the century of England and the 20th Century this was the USA, then the 21 Century the century of China. By recognizing this rule of history, we welcome the arrival of the Chinese Century, so it is the historical mission of our Party to get this! "

"What kind of fight we could follow in order to achieve the goal of the Chinese century? What was the reason for the defeat of Germany and Japan? First, they fought too many people at once. They did not follow the principle, they first isolate with each other and to defeat later one by one. Second, they were too much on the success and had no patience and perseverance. Third, they were too lenient when it came to beat the enemy with malice and destroy them. Whatever they had left, they were later undoing. Let us think about it. "

One nation, one party, one leader and an ideology

"At that time Hitler's Germany claimed that the Germanic race is the best on earth, and we can say that our much more superior than their. (...) The Chinese are superior to the Germans because they are the better race, so we have a longer history, more people and a larger country. (...) However, if you superficially compares the situation of today's China with that of Germany at that time, the story shows striking similarities. Both believe they are superior to other races. Both experienced a history of oppression by other countries and wanted vengeance. Both had the tradition to admire their state leadership, and the serious conviction that they had too little habitat.

Both held the flag for nationalism and socialism high and therefore called themselves "National Socialists" and admired "one nation, one party, one leader and an ideology. (...) "

The speech "The war comes to us" was first published in January 2003 under the title "A recent speech by a senior official of the People's Liberation Army" on websites such as www.mwjx.com, the authorship of the speech is not unique to clarify. On 11 October 2003, was again under the title "The war comes to us - Chi Haotian" published on websites such as www.chinaren.com Sometimes also called "China, do you still 10 peaceful years?".. Chi Haotian worked in his office as Secretary of Defense until 2004. His follow-up article "The war is not far from us, it is the midwife of the Chinese century," was released on www.peacehall.com and on April 23, 2005 January 15, 2005 www.boxun.com. Websites that published these speeches are news sites, their servers are located within China or which can be visited without censorship in China. DNE

*Now the Belt & Road Initiative Bering Strait tunnel will be completed 
https://chinawatchcanada.blogspot.com/2020/08/china-is-paving-its-belt-and-road-to.html